minor4th
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
- Messages
- 8,529
- Reaction score
- 5,223
Yes!!
Trial Discussion Thread #6 - 14.03.13-14, Day 9-10
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
-
NH NH - Stanley Shayne Bassett, Missing since 1977 from Franklin- Latest: ChatteringBirds
-
- Status
Yes!!
What investigation? What tests did he perform to determine whether or not that was the prosthetic foot print?
I'm not an attorney at all, if you were talking to me...
Interested Bystander
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 345
I agree. That has been my opinion since Day 1. I posted around that time that she did not seem to be following the argument. Though, like these witnesses, I cannot remember my exact words.
minor4th
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
- Messages
- 8,529
- Reaction score
- 5,223
He didn't investigate that - maybe because they were afraid the results would corroborate Oscar's version ...
zwiebel
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2012
- Messages
- 27,184
- Reaction score
- 596
Col: The indentation on the side of the bat did not match the contours of the door in this position. (In photo Roux is showing him that seems it might be useful to OP's case)
Adjournment coming up......but before that
R: It's been reported to the police...and we have feedback....that the accused had a little box or cabinet where watches went missing and we need the inventory for that purpose
Col: I did not make an inventory of everything in that house....crime scene manager would do that inventory
R: Someone at the front door was making an inventory...do you know where it is?
Col: No.
Adjournment coming up......but before that
R: It's been reported to the police...and we have feedback....that the accused had a little box or cabinet where watches went missing and we need the inventory for that purpose
Col: I did not make an inventory of everything in that house....crime scene manager would do that inventory
R: Someone at the front door was making an inventory...do you know where it is?
Col: No.
it is , it seems , important for Oscar, that the mark in question is the mark of his 'foot' kicking the door.
it is equally important to the prosecutor that it ISNT a 'footprint' of Oscars kicking the door down .
that's what we learnt in that exchange..
it is equally important to the prosecutor that it ISNT a 'footprint' of Oscars kicking the door down .
that's what we learnt in that exchange..
minor4th
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
- Messages
- 8,529
- Reaction score
- 5,223
I guess that's the video we've all watched. Not surprisingly, the State did not do an audio investigation to determine the similarity between gun shots and cricket bat breaking the door.
The Col didn't come to the conclusion that it was a prosthetic footprint. his job was to match up the cricket bat marks.. with the bat.
this particular mark he states , since it has not even the slightest indentation , which one would expect from a flying kick , at least some kind of indentation , then it isn't a kick mark
his testimony from yesterday..
so is it a kick mark?? or not?? its nutty to claim it IS a kickmark now, since no one has heard how Oscar could in fact kick it at that height.. I am presuming you know the height of the mark.
so Until that is testified to. its merely a mark.
Cols sworn testimony. .not a kick mark.
Roux opinion under Oscars instruction. its a kick mark.
that's where it is at the moment. no further and no less behind.
this particular mark he states , since it has not even the slightest indentation , which one would expect from a flying kick , at least some kind of indentation , then it isn't a kick mark
his testimony from yesterday..
so is it a kick mark?? or not?? its nutty to claim it IS a kickmark now, since no one has heard how Oscar could in fact kick it at that height.. I am presuming you know the height of the mark.
so Until that is testified to. its merely a mark.
Cols sworn testimony. .not a kick mark.
Roux opinion under Oscars instruction. its a kick mark.
that's where it is at the moment. no further and no less behind.
zwiebel
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2012
- Messages
- 27,184
- Reaction score
- 596
It's dreadful that a watch went missing and then the inventory seemed to disappear - it taints everything. Leaves room for a lot of doubt about the integrity of the chain of evidence, together with the missing bits of door....
its Oscars CLAIM that a watch went missing..
it isn't verified, or sworn to as yet..
maybe it did go missing, maybe Oscar is scamming..
could be one or the other.. .
Ok. If the Col's was to investigate the bat marks and not the proposed foot print, then he doesn't know it's a kick mark or not. Wouldn't the more appropriate answer be, "I don't know?" Obviously, Roux has to ask the question because he wants it put out that it could be or is a kick mark. The Col 's answers have the potential of sounding biased. I don't want them to.
Understand that not all of us can watch the live feed right now. Not trying to be a nuisance, just trying to understand what I don't know. If it's a bother to answer the question, then skip it...
meebee.. the colonel is the STATE witness!!.. he isn't a NEUTRAL. he is a witness FOR the prosecution.. it isn't his job to chase down every version and theory Oscar puts to his attorney..
its his job to evaluate the evidence taken in charge by the prosecutors office and conclude and then testify upon it
Don't tell me that anywhere in the WORLD the states ballistic officer gets a theory a day FROM THE ACCUSED and then chases it down FOR the accused defence ??
The colonel at first sight discarded the notion of it being a kick mark. having discarded the possibility, he wont be moved to agree that it IS a kickmark. that's all.
its his job to evaluate the evidence taken in charge by the prosecutors office and conclude and then testify upon it
Don't tell me that anywhere in the WORLD the states ballistic officer gets a theory a day FROM THE ACCUSED and then chases it down FOR the accused defence ??
The colonel at first sight discarded the notion of it being a kick mark. having discarded the possibility, he wont be moved to agree that it IS a kickmark. that's all.
the fact that the Colonel wont be drawn into agreeing its a kick mark isn't bias.. its disagreeing with the theory Roux is suggesting under Oscars instructions..
what would be the point of a trial if everyone beforehand agreed with the accused that his version is correct?? he wouldn't have been CHARGED with PRE MED murder if everybody from the cleaner up to the commander agreed Oscar didn't murder Ms Steenkamp.
what would be the point of a trial if everyone beforehand agreed with the accused that his version is correct?? he wouldn't have been CHARGED with PRE MED murder if everybody from the cleaner up to the commander agreed Oscar didn't murder Ms Steenkamp.
illowfight2:- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
Online statistics
- Members online
- 56
- Guests online
- 1,811
- Total visitors
- 1,867